All alone on Israel island

[luckytxn 2,264]

The US' veto next week at the UN will be the 43rd time it has been the solitary veto on resolutions condemning Israel.Yousef Munayyer Last Modified: 18 Sep 2011 14:21

in

Share

EmailPrintShareFeedbackNext week, the UN Security Council will vote on whether or not to pass the resolution on Palestine's membership bid [GALLO/GETTY]Solitude and Absurdity. Perhaps no two other words better described the scene at the United Nations earlier this year when US Ambassador Susan Rice raised her hand with a reluctant expression on her face to veto a Security Council resolution condemning Israeli colonial expansion. Fourteen of the fifteen members of the UN's most important body voted for this resolution save the United States.

The absurdity? The resolution was pieced together using language from speeches and statements American principals have made regarding Israel's illegal colonies. Susan Rice was effectively vetoing American policy and then found herself in the peculiar position of explaining why the US was against settlements despite vetoing the resolution.

The United States does not want to see another episode of this saga - let's call it Israel Island - repeated when the Palestinians bring their application for membership to the United Nations this week. No government enjoys isolation, especially not in today's interdependent and interconnected world and certainly not a leading power in world politics.

With Arab publics clearly asserting their influence in Arab politics today more than ever and with Palestine continuing to be the tie that binds Arab nations, the United States knows that being an impediment to Palestinian self-determination on an international stage is only becoming costlier.

Vacationing on Israel Island

But it would be wrong to think that it is the Palestinians that put the United States in this uncomfortable position. To the contrary, the US has been routinely vacationing on Israel Island for years. In fact, since 1972 the United States has been the single, solitary veto on 42 Security Council resolutions condemning Israeli violations of international law or human rights. Now, in light of the Arab uprisings and a recalcitrant Netanyahu government hell-bent on expanding Israeli colonies despite state US policy, Israel Island is not the comfortable destination it used to be.

So why would the Palestinians, who don't want to alienate the United States, force the question by bringing their application to the Security Council?

"The Oslo Peace Process was supposed to be something of a three-hour tour."

It's simple really. You see, the Oslo Peace Process was supposed to be something of a three-hour tour. Yet, this week marked the 18th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Principles in the Rose Garden. The framework, which was supposed to yield a Palestinian state in 5 years, became an Odyssey. Nearly two decades later the number of Israeli settlers in Palestinian territory has nearly tripled and the United States has done little if anything effective to exercise leverage to change Israeli behavior.

It may have taken 18 years, three American presidents and several hundred thousand Israeli settlers but even the most moderate Palestinian leaders have come to the conclusion that Washington simply cannot be an even handed-mediator.

Despite calls for Israel to stop, settlements continue to grow [GALLO/GETTY]

And, on cue, Washington's response to the Palestinian UN bid will expose the very reason why it is continually handicapped when it comes to Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking. By reflexively supporting Israeli whims regardless of the costs, it reinforces the well-founded Palestinian belief that Washington is incapable of change.

Despite vast international consensus on Palestinian self-determination, American ambassadors are furiously trying to convince their counterparts to vote against Palestinian statehood and undoubtedly expending American political and diplomatic capital in the process. Turkey, a long-standing NATO ally, is drifting away and a veto against Palestinian statehood will only exacerbate that situation. Washington's oldest ally in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, indicated that the US-Saudi relationship would be irreversibly damaged by US opposition in the Security Council.

Congress is currently threatening not only to cut off assistance to Palestinians but also to defund programs at the United Nations which could promote Palestinian aspirations.

American impotency

In short, the United States is consistently acting against its own interests to serve the interest of a right-wing Israeli government. The Palestinian UN bid, which is exposing this rather embarrassing American behaviour internationally, is a way for Palestinians to say to the world, "You see, this is what we have to deal with when we participate in US-led negotiations."

Israel Island is not simply a metaphysical place - it is a mentality - one that prefers isolation over cooperation, stubbornness and recalcitrance over genuine concessions and complying with international law, and vetoes over pressuring Israel.

A valuable lesson from the Arab uprisings is that Israel cannot expect lasting peace with Arab regimes if it does not have peace with Arab nations. It can't simply wall itself OFF from neighbours it has maligned and expect peaceful coexistence.

The United States has an opportunity to impress this reality upon Israel in a serious way this week. Unfortunately, it appears intent on retreating to Israel Island rather than embracing an opportunity to support Palestinian self-determination.

Yousef Munayyer is a writer and political analyst based in Washington, DC. He is currently the Executive Director of the Jerusalem Fund for Education and Community Development.

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/09/201191785718812831.htmlLink:

[Sofiyya 1,687]

In short, the United States is consistently acting against its own interests to serve the interest of a right-wing Israeli government. The Palestinian UN bid, which is exposing this rather embarrassing American behaviour internationally, is a way for Palestinians to say to the world, "You see, this is what we have to deal with when we participate in US-led negotiations."

Israel Island is not simply a metaphysical place - it is a mentality - one that prefers isolation over cooperation, stubbornness and recalcitrance over genuine concessions and complying with international law, and vetoes over pressuring Israel.

A valuable lesson from the Arab uprisings is that Israel cannot expect lasting peace with Arab regimes if it does not have peace with Arab nations. It can't simply wall itself OFF from neighbours it has maligned and expect peaceful coexistence.

The United States has an opportunity to impress this reality upon Israel in a serious way this week. Unfortunately, it appears intent on retreating to Israel Island rather than embracing an opportunity to support Palestinian self-determination.

The summary explains it quite well. Despite the winds of change, the US continues its imperialist aspirations with Israel as its proxy. Talk of democracy, freedom, self-determination for Palestinians fall by the wayside as it moves even farther into hypocrisy and irrelevance in the region.

Why does the government think it's doing Israel a favor by ignoring the reality of its position versus the that of most other nations? Will they later return to the podium to explain that it was a ploy to drive other nations to do what needed to be done in the absence of reason? How long can the AIPAC keep our political system blind, deaf and dumb?

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Even Thomas Friedman is saying it. Today, NYT:

Israel: Adrift at Sea Alone

I’ve never been more worried about Israel’s future. The crumbling of key pillars of Israel’s security — the peace with Egypt, the stability of Syria and the friendship of Turkey and Jordan — coupled with the most diplomatically inept and strategically incompetent government in Israel’s history have put Israel in a very dangerous situation.

This has also left the U.S. government fed up with Israel’s leadership but a hostage to its ineptitude, because the powerful pro-Israel lobby in an election season can force the administration to defend Israel at the U.N., even when it knows Israel is pursuing policies not in its own interest or America’s.

...

O.K., Mr. Netanyahu has a strategy: Do nothing vis-à-vis the Palestinians or Turkey that will require him to go against his base, compromise his ideology or antagonize his key coalition partner, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, an extreme right-winger. Then, call on the U.S. to stop Iran’s nuclear program and help Israel out of every pickle, but make sure that President Obama can’t ask for anything in return — like halting Israeli settlements — by mobilizing Republicans in Congress to box in Obama and by encouraging Jewish leaders to suggest that Obama is hostile to Israel and is losing the Jewish vote. And meanwhile, get the Israel lobby to hammer anyone in the administration or Congress who says aloud that maybe Bibi has made some mistakes, not just Barack. There, who says Mr. Netanyahu doesn’t have a strategy?

...

I have great sympathy for Israel’s strategic dilemma and no illusions about its enemies. But Israel today is giving its friends — and President Obama’s one of them — nothing to defend it with. Israel can fight with everyone or it can choose not to surrender but to blunt these trends with a peace overture that fair-minded people would recognize as serious, and thereby reduce its isolation.

Unfortunately, Israel today does not have a leader or a cabinet for such subtle diplomacy. One can only hope that the Israeli people will recognize this before this government plunges Israel into deeper global isolation and drags America along with it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/opinion/sunday/friedman-israel-adrift-at-sea-alone.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Edited September 18, 2011 by wife_of_mahmoud

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Even Thomas Friedman is saying it. Today, NYT:

I may not agree with Friedman on all points, but he's not a stupid man.

That reminds me, I've had more than one battle with editors at Wikipedia who consider him more of an authority on Islam than any Muslim scholar That's one of my problems with WP as a source re Islam, Muslims and the ME. They have no clue . . .

[Sofiyya 1,687]

In one corner:

Published 16:43 18.09.11Latest update 16:43 18.09.11

Poll: Majority of Palestinians believe UN statehood bid will succeed

Surveys released by Near East Consulting shows 90% of Palestinians believe Israel would exact harsher measures against them in the wake of upcoming independence proposal.

By Ron Ben-Toviz and Haaretz

More than half of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza believe that Palestinian Authority's bid to gain statehood at the United Nations will succeed, a poll said on Sunday, adding that a vast majority of Palestinian respondents believed Israel would response harshly if the proposal indeed passes.

The United States has reportedly been working to thwart what it considered to be a unilateral Palestinian bid for recognition in the Security Council later this week, with U.S. President Barack Obama saying that Washington object such a move "very strongly, precisely because we think it would be counterproductive."

Moreover, diplomatic sources indicated on Saturday that the United States was hard at work trying to assemble enough Security Council members to vote against the Palestinian proposal or at least abstain it so as to prevent Washington from the need to wield its veto power on the issue.

Speaking on the subject in the weekly cabinet meeting in Jerusalem earlier Sunday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said "the Palestinians' wish to become a permanent UN member… is bound to fail because they have to go through the Security Council."

However, in a poll conducted by the independent Palestinian firm Near East Consulting and released by the official Palestinian news agency WAFA, found that 57% of Palestinian respondents believed the UN bid would succeed, with 43% believing it would fail.

The survey, which polled 865 Palestinians over the age of 18 in both the West Bank and Gaza, also showed that 84% supported the Palestinian proposal at the UN, with 67% believing that the Palestinian Authority was capable of running an independent Palestinian state.

In addition, the Near East Consulting survey indicated that 90% of those polled believed Israel will exact harsher measures on the Palestinians in response to the UN bid, with 87% believing that a statehood bid could garner a harsh American response.

Referring more to the possibility of the Palestinian bid having negative effects on the Palestinian cause, the poll indicated that 70% of respondents are concerned on the possible effect of the UN bid on the rights of Palestinian refugees, with another 53% saying they believed recognition of Palestinian statehood would have at least short-term negative effects.

And, in the opposite corner, the old guard:

Published 19:57 18.09.11Latest update 19:57 18.09.11

Bill Clinton: Palestinian recognition at UN won't change basic Mideast reality

Speaking to NBC's 'Meet the Press,' former U.S. President says U.S. must veto PA statehood bid at Security Council, but must contain potential 'negative fallout.'

By Haaretz

A recognition of Palestinian statehood at the United Nations will not change the fundamental realities of the Middle East, former U.S. President Bill Clinton said on Sunday, adding that he believed Washington would veto a the proposal at the Security Council since it is "committed to Israel's security."

Earlier Sunday Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, referring to an upcoming UN vote on Palestinian statehood, said in a cabinet meeting that "the Palestinians' wish to become a permanent UN member… is bound to fail because they have to go through the Security Council."

He said that even though the Palestinians can opt to turn to the general assembly, "it does not have the same significance of the Security Council, and that is not the Palestinians' stated goal."

Speaking to NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday, former president Clinton said that the United States must "contain the fallout" from the Palestinian UN bid expected later this week, adding that "when this is over the underlying reality won't change, and we still believe there should be a Palestinian state and we still believe that there should be cooperation between Israel and its Arab neighbors."

Clinton said he felt that above all the Palestinian bid was an "act of frustration by the Palestinians, and what I think we've all got to do is contain the negative fallout."

Clinton said he felt the Palestinians knew "that they have to negotiate borders and securities with the Israelis, they're just frustrated because they feel they have provided a secure environment, they have reinforced cooperation with the Israelis, they have produced a growing economy in the West Bank, they have renounced violence…and there's been no progress."

"So when they get the vote, which will be extremely positive, since most of the rest of the world thinks the Israelis have made an error not being more forthcoming with the government, and the U.S. vetoes it, which we will do because we're committed to Israel's security and that the idea that the two parties have to negotiate a solution," he added.

"So I don't know what's going to happen, I just know that this is one of those deals where we're either going to go forward or fall back and I favor going forward, I don't think the fundamental realties have changed in 20 years," the former U.S. president said.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

I may not agree with Friedman on all points, but he's not a stupid man.

That reminds me, I've had more than one battle with editors at Wikipedia who consider him more of an authority on Islam than any Muslim scholar That's one of my problems with WP as a source re Islam, Muslims and the ME. They have no clue . . .

Thomas Friedman knows the stakes. The government of Israel - in the thrall of extremist right-wing settlers (not all of whom are religious) who believe in Eretz Israel and "Arabs Get Out" - has set itself on a course that will ultimately end up forcing a one-state solution. This means the end of their fantasy of a Democratic-but-Jewish State (which never existed anyway but Friedman & co. think it does.)

[luckytxn 2,264]

I still think the U.S. will buy their way out. Hope all you want but change will not happen.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I still think the U.S. will buy their way out. Hope all you want but change will not happen.

Change ALWAYS happens

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

I still think the U.S. will buy their way out. Hope all you want but change will not happen.

I think you misunderstood my point. I am saying that the mainstream American pro-Jewish community, as exemplified by Thomas Friedman, don't want the U.S. to veto the Palestinian statehood bid, and this is why:

The current course of the Israeli government - to prevent a Palestinian State, to retain control of the West Bank, and to continue expanding the illegal settlements by seizing more and more Palestinian land - will ultimately result in a one-state solution. Israel will indeed end up with all the land of the West Bank. But it will also end up with the nearly 3 million Palestinians who live there (Gaza has another 1.7 million or so, which, along with the millions of refugees in the diaspora are yet more thorny issues.) This is what Friedman & co. are freaking out about.

Because at that point, once it has all the land, Israel has to face a choice - will it be a "democratic state" and give all these Palestinians full rights as Israeli citizens (which, due to demographics, means the imminent end of a Jewish-majority state.) Or will Israel be a "Jewish State" that denies rights to nearly half its population based on their ethnicity (or ethnically cleanses what remains of the Palestinian "demographic threat" ?) It won't be able to be both Jewish and democratic.

Extreme right-wing Israelis (along with their American cheerleaders) don't really have qualms about an Apartheid state for the benefit of Jewish Israelis - many of them are living in that type of situation already in the West Bank settlements.

Most of the pro-Israeli liberal Jews, though - and a lot of them are American - are repulsed by that solution. But they want Israel to remain a Jewish majority. So they see the two-state solution as the only real way to "keep Israel Jewish." (Personally, I know they are fighting a demographic war they can't hope to win, either way.)

So Friedman is sounding the alarm that AIPAC's pressure on Washington for an American veto is not "good for Israel," and is in fact "bad for Israel." His target audience isn't you or me - he's trying to mobilize the American Jewish pro-Israel community to confront and counter The Lobby.

[mawilson 2,133]

Personally, I know they are fighting a demographic war they can't hope to win, either way.

How? You expect Israeli Arabs to outbreed Israeli Jews even though they are outnumbered 5:1?

[luckytxn 2,264]

Change ALWAYS happens

I love optimism.

[luckytxn 2,264]

I think you misunderstood my point. I am saying that the mainstream American pro-Jewish community, as exemplified by Thomas Friedman, don't want the U.S. to veto the Palestinian statehood bid, and this is why:

The current course of the Israeli government - to prevent a Palestinian State, to retain control of the West Bank, and to continue expanding the illegal settlements by seizing more and more Palestinian land - will ultimately result in a one-state solution. Israel will indeed end up with all the land of the West Bank. But it will also end up with the nearly 3 million Palestinians who live there (Gaza has another 1.7 million or so, which, along with the millions of refugees in the diaspora are yet more thorny issues.) This is what Friedman & co. are freaking out about.

Because at that point, once it has all the land, Israel has to face a choice - will it be a "democratic state" and give all these Palestinians full rights as Israeli citizens (which, due to demographics, means the imminent end of a Jewish-majority state.) Or will Israel be a "Jewish State" that denies rights to nearly half its population based on their ethnicity (or ethnically cleanses what remains of the Palestinian "demographic threat" ?) It won't be able to be both Jewish and democratic.

Extreme right-wing Israelis (along with their American cheerleaders) don't really have qualms about an Apartheid state for the benefit of Jewish Israelis - many of them are living in that type of situation already in the West Bank settlements.

Most of the pro-Israeli liberal Jews, though - and a lot of them are American - are repulsed by that solution. But they want Israel to remain a Jewish majority. So they see the two-state solution as the only real way to "keep Israel Jewish." (Personally, I know they are fighting a demographic war they can't hope to win, either way.)

So Friedman is sounding the alarm that AIPAC's pressure on Washington for an American veto is not "good for Israel," and is in fact "bad for Israel." His target audience isn't you or me - he's trying to mobilize the American Jewish pro-Israel community to confront and counter The Lobby.

I understood you and his reasoning but if the U.S. doesn't want something (meaning the Government) they usually get it and they get it by paying off with as much money as it takes.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

How? You expect Israeli Arabs to outbreed Israeli Jews even though they are outnumbered 5:1?

Israel was only able to create a sizeable Jewish majority in Israel through artificial means - #1 ethnic cleansing of 80% of the indigenous population, and #2 massive immigration of foreign Jews. Despite these two stopgap measures, the proportion of Jewish Israelis has declined from a high of 89% in 1958 to a low of 75% in 2010. #1 won't fly any more, and #2 is tapped out.

Current demographics show Israel has a 21% Arab population, but its birthrate is twice that of the Jewish population. Unless Israel finds another mother lode of foreign Jews to import as it did with the former Soviet Union, then within another 40 years or so the Jew:Arab ratio will be just 2:1 and Israel will become a bi-national state. Give it another 75 years or so, and Israel will be an Arab-majority state.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

I understood you and his reasoning but if the U.S. doesn't want something (meaning the Government) they usually get it and they get it by paying off with as much money as it takes.

Yes there is a frantic scramble to try to get someone else to hold the bag at the Security Council.

[mawilson 2,133]

Current demographics show Israel has a 21% Arab population, but its birthrate is twice that of the Jewish population. Unless Israel finds another mother lode of foreign Jews to import as it did with the former Soviet Union, then within another 40 years or so the Jew:Arab ratio will be just 2:1 and Israel will become a bi-national state. Give it another 75 years or so, and Israel will be an Arab-majority state.

So why don't you just wait another 75 years? You'll get your Palestinian state then.